By Tatzhit
source: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e8b_1438150640
There are a lot of arguments for the fact that Ukrainian nation does not exist, all Ukrainians are Russians brainwashed to hate their nation, Ukrainian history is fake, etc. Mostly, these arguments are put forth by people who do not understand the difference between “nation” and “ethnicity”.
The idea of a “nation” really originated in the age of gunpowder, when mass armies and industrialization brought the need for countries to be united by something greater than a common language, feudal overlord and religion, and this idea was spread via mass literacy and education*.
“Nation” is not the same as ethnic or language group – there are plenty of nations that unite multiple ethnicities or languages, and plenty of ethnic/language groups split across several nations.
A “nation” is a powerful idea – similar to an ideology or even a religion.
In fact, when it comes to nation-building, the lines between nationalism, ideology and religion blur. Was there a “Soviet” nation? Many would say that there was.
Western invaders of today trying to bring the light of “democracy” to the unwashed savages – how different is their blind belief that their way is the best way, from that of medieval religious crusaders? The results are certainly much the same.
And idea can not be “fake” as long as some people believe in it. The Mormon or Scientologist religions aren’t “fake” simply because the man that made their fanciful claims happened to live more recently than other “prophets”. Nor is it necessary for an idea to perfectly match reality. Sure, Ukrainian national myth is quite far from historical facts. So what? After all, Americans and Russians still believe they brought “freedom / equality” around the world despite millions of innocent people that perished in their imperial escapades, but that doesn’t make these nations “fake”.
However, an idea can be bad. Virtually all religions and ideologies constantly need to be updated and the parts carried over from cruel times of old thrown out.
Some religions and political ideologies are bad enough to where people call them “cults”, “nazis” and such, and ban em. National ideas are no different – they are constantly changing, and may have bad parts.
For example, national superiority, “natural white supremacy”, Aryan race, all that.
Sure, these days it has PC names like “American exceptionalism”, but the essence is the same: Americans know ~four and a half thousand US soldiers died in Iraq, but have the arrogance to not count or care how many brown people needlessly died as a result of their invasion (estimates range from 100 thousand to millions).
And Ukrainian national idea certainly has its share of problems.
For starters, it has indeed been co-opted by various foreign powers literally for centuries, and its message bent to their will to be used as a weapon against Russia and Russians. And that’s a problem because Russians and Ukrainians are very close, as much as, say, Americans and Texans**.
Yes, Texans. A Russian would have an easier time understanding a Ukrainian than a Yankee would have with a rural Texan, and Ukraine has been part of Russia twice longer than Texas was part of US. Tack on a couple centuries of foreign funding, and a large dose of subversive actions by powerful agencies, some quality NGO work – you’ll have “Texan language” and America-hating “Texan nation” on your hands in no time. And the fact that the Dust Bowl wasn’t an American plot to starve the Texas farmers into submission won’t matter – as I said, even if an idea isn’t true, as long as people believe it, it has power.
Heck, a weakening of the federal government and some Soros funds is probably all it would take for “Texan nation” or “Cascadian nation” to emerge:
“A September 2014 Reuters/Ipsos poll found over 34% of people in the southwest favored their state seceding from the United States”. There are a number of similar polls showing that result is broadly correct.
This is similar to Ukraine in spring 1991 – on a referendum, 28% of people voted to split from USSR, while 70% voted to stay … But the same referendum in after just a few months of propaganda yielded 92% vote for secession .
These facts aren’t good or bad by themselves. That’s just how reality is – nations are ideas, new ones can be formed, and they aren’t necessarily any less “legitimate” or “good” than the previous ones.
In some cases, a “national idea” is composed well and can bring greater social unity and better, local self-government. In some cases, nationalists can use the wrong tools, divide society and ruin the country… And with that, we’re back to Ukraine.
As I’ve said, Russians and Ukrainians are extremely close; so much so that “Russian” and “Ukrainian” in modern Ukraine are more self-chosen ideological labels than clearly separate ethnic/cultural groups***.
That is the root cause of “Judeo-Banderite” meme* and the fact that many “Ukrainian nationalists” grew up as “Russians” and do not, in fact, speak Ukrainian. By the same token, there are plenty of people that grew up speaking Ukrainian and yet believe that Ukraine should be one country with Russia.
Also, “Russia” and “Ukraine” are closely intertwined not just in the minds of the local population, but economically – ~350 years of economic ties makes for an extremely close cooperation .
So, what do you think would happen in Texas if “Texan nationalists” forbid anyone who doesn’t speak “proper, rural Texan” from holding government positions, banned “American” symbols as “legacy of oppression”, declared Timothy McVeigh their national hero, etc. etc.? There you have it – Ukrainian civil war explained.
What do you think would happen if “Texan nation” cut ties with America and instead tried to join Mexico (who, though initially interested, would soon realize it wants nothing to do with the nationalist maniacs)? There you have it – the economic ruin brought about by Ukraine’s EuroIntegration summed up.
However, just because the current “Banderite” brand of Ukrainian nationalism is tainted by Nazi collaboration, fratricide, falsification of history, serving foreign interests above their own people, etc. etc. does not mean that any and all ideas that envision Ukraine as a separate state are bad.
Buzina was a Ukrainian nationalist, and so were most Bolsheviks, for example – they preferred a strong and vibrant Ukrainian autonomy with the Soviet “federation” rather than an anti-Russian “European Ukraine”, but the fact that “Ukrainian national idea” re-emerged after being suppressed by the Tzars is largely due to Bolshevik efforts .
Then there are people like Tatiana Montyan – with their own “Ukrainian national ideas” that aren’t like that of Buzina or the Bolsheviks, but aren’t like that of “Banderites” either.
So, the options for a “Ukrainian national ideology” aren’t limited to worshiping the butchers of Volyn and selling anything that isn’t nailed down to foreign masters.
What conclusions can we make to sum this article up?
– Ukrainian national idea is definitely real and powerful, no less real than many other national ideas.
– From the start, it has been used, and by 2014 got wholly subverted by, the sort of people who would kill their neighbors for the sake of foreign money and seizing power.
– In this “Banderized” state, it is bad for literally everyone (in Ukraine, Russia, Europe) including even the poor rank-and-file “banderites” themselves. The only ones who benefit are the leaders of the banderites, some oligarchs, and certain foreign interest groups controlling them.
– Whether the ideology of a “Ukrainian nation” can be healed to unite and strengthen the nation, or whether the nation would continue fracturing and collapsing under the weight of hate and lie-based “Banderizm”, remains to be seen.
Of course, the answer doesn’t depend purely on ideology – political, economical, and even purely military events may shift the balance towards one or the other outcome. For example, another likely, if sad, scenario is that ideological debates will become pointless in a few decades if the sharp decline of the local population continues – Ukrainian nation, language, and history will simply go the way of the dinosaurs.
Which scenario will come to pass, if Ukrainian national idea can be re-built without the destructive parts, and whether the country of Ukraine will exist in the future – is ultimately up to Ukrainians.
Such cases (c)
Notes:
* This article by a Ukrainian nationalist (not translated) expands the idea is greater depth. While he does not share my bleak view of the current situation, his view of the nature of “national idea” and his arguments for the existence of “Ukrainian nation” are much the same. Worth reading.
**Jews following the Banderite brand of Ukrainian nationalism – which is weird, because original, WWII Banderites considered Jews their enemies and helped Nazis exterminate them . But as I said, historical facts matter little – modern Ukrainian “history” tends to whitewash these crimes.
*** Not that there are not real “Russian” and “Ukrainian” ethnicities or sub-cultures – but without the nationalism, the distinction would have as much importance as say Minnesotan / Floridian differences.
The analogy with Texas is useful. It’s true I think that much of history in the making is up for grabs, and can be shifted by ideas and people. Much of what “should” have happened never quite managed to, and vice versa.
I always liked the scenario in the Gibson-Sterling novel, The Difference Engine. In an alternate history, Victorian England keeps Texas separated from the rest of the Union, in the standard imperial method of keeping other nations divided and prevented from becoming big enough to threaten.
I’m not sure about why it wouldn’t be a good idea to have a Texas Republic and a Cascadian Republic…I thought it was a good idea
Yes,that Cascadian Republic has a nicely sweet aroma.If it ever happens it will be long after I’m gone from this world.Dammit…..
A rather simplicistic idea of how to overcome ultranationalism (fascism) among Galician Ukrainians, which I think would not probably work – at least maybe for another 100 years, if the children can be reeducated. We have to remember this idea has been among these people for a hundred years; they received it in their mother’s wombs, drank it with their mother’s milk, and have it for their daily bread. The definition of fascism is that it is a form of ultranationlism structured on extreme elitism, with permanent revolution as an essential element. Violence and war are justified means to attain a permanent fascist dictatorship. Because it is based on the natural human good to be loyal (patriotic) to one’s country (but obviously in fascism it is distorted) it is almost impossible to eradicate. The idea of Ukrainian as a separate and distinct group of people comes from Hrushevs’kyi, but the pioneer of Ukrainian nationalism/fascism was Mykola Mikhnovs’kyi (1873-1924). “The second commandment of ‘The Ten Commandments of the UNP’ said ‘All people are your brothers, but Russians, Poles, Magyars, Romanians, and Jews are enemies of our nation….’ He also said “Ukraine for Ukrainians, and as long as even one alien enemy remains on our territory, we are not allowed to lay down our arms.” (quotes from Samostiina Ukraïna)
Yes, you probably can’t overcome it, the only thing to do is disconnect Galicia, so they only can harm themselves and no others.
I think Galicia breaking away would be the best solution for everyone. They can join the EU and NATO if they want and can have Ukrainian as the only official language. Most of the problems in Ukraine today come from them being forced into Soviet Ukraine during WW2 by Stalin. Even though they like to claim that Ukrainian people are one nation and their language is the true language, we can see that clearly there are two different nations struggling to live together in the same country.
Unfortunately they seem determined to hold onto all of Soviet-era Ukraine, even the regions that were not historically part of Ukraine and don’t want to be part of it. At the same time they condemn the Soviets for forcing them into Soviet Ukraine after WW2. They insist on following Soviet borders when it suits them, and ignore them when they wish. Apparently it was ok when they separated from the Soviet Union and declared independence. And it was ok when they staged a violent coup to force Ukraine into the EU. And it was ok when they declared independence from the central government in Kiev and announced they were going to sign their own agreement to join the EU. It’s only when someone wants to separate from them that it’s wrong.
Anon 3.29, Mikhnovs’kyi’s dictum is a recipe for genocide, if all aliens are ‘enemies’ by definition, or some form of fascistic apartheid if the ‘aliens’ are friendly, ie subservient and meek. It’s just yet another version of human psychopathy in action. Paranoid, aggressive, violent, ‘racially’ and individually narcissistic and lacking all empathy and compassion, these Rightwing psychopaths have one dreadful advantage. Their appetite for murder means they mould their societies not just psychologically by making opposition lethally dangerous thereby encouraging collaboration, but also in the Darwinian sense by exterminating those less psychotic, generation after generation. All for the vanity of tiny differences in a species with 99% plus the same DNA and 99% or so identical behaviour. The crucial differences are innately psychological, particularly when exacerbated by ‘religion’, our favourite means of coping with the inevitability of death. Some ‘religions’ are simply more malevolent than others, and their adherents more dangerous and destructive, and fundamentalist varieties of all religions (even Buddhism!)are particularly malignant.
There is no such thing as “fascist dictatorship”.
All fascist regimes are inherently democratic in nature, as they support the majority of its people, predominantly the middle class (bourgeoisie)
Also not sure about elitist label – both Mussolini and Hitler were proud of their pleb roots, so was Franco. Not sure about the US regime leaders though – from Kenedies, they all have been explicitly proud of their elite roots (blood-line, education etc.), hence my confusion.
But at the end, what is important is that one cannot deny fascism – one can call it with different name all along, but honest people will see clearly through the demagoguery.
Using Texas as a simile is very interesting. If you know Texas, West Texas is very distinct from East and North Texas. This really is cultural, not just surface stuff. Just as Ukraine is not a whole or nation.
Ukraine was East and West historically, and is still East and West, not a “nation” in all the minds. There are several centers, such as Donbass and Lvov and Odessa. And this is history and blood lines and experiences.
Ukraine really only had “glory” joined with Russia. All the rest is very artificial and inoperative as a nation, an economy, an identity.
Their fast readiness to wage ethnic cleansing against their own Ukrainians, to destroy the industry of Ukraine, to shoot themselves in the foot, to desecrate and destroy their own history indicates no sense of a whole Ukraine.
The whole is at best two halves, maybe four or six pieces with no hope of 21st Century success as Ukraine united. They suffer from split brain, left-right hemispheric disorder of sorts.
The humanity of Ukraine is demonstrated only among the Russian half. We have ample evidence. The Ukrainians look good when you are looking at the Russian component, like in Donbass. The rest of it is very troubled and hollowed out. A phony religion, a weak language, and no hope of economic success without Russia. Never has been any other way for 1000 years.
In fact, the best of the Ukies, the very most talented and intelligent and cultured indicate this affinity is imperative for Ukraine to be, to exist. There can be no Ukraine without Russia. That precludes the idea of “nation”.
It is everything except a nation. A state of a federation, a provence, a region.
Just for one example, the local Slavic people at extreme western (!) Ukraine in Sub-Carpathian Rus have been denying since 1848 (when the idea originated) being some sort of “Ukrainian” nation or ethnicity or whatever. It has always been seen as a separatist movement at heart, and the people of Carpatho-Russia (present Trans-Carpathian oblast, northeast Slovakia, southeast Poland, and historically farther south in near areas of Hungary and Romania) dreamed for centuries of some day joining the rest of the Russian nation (but were under Austro-Hungarian rule and to talk that way was treated as treason). The last time they were free (until 1938 within Czechoslovakia) there were at least 12 daily self-financed Russian-language newspapers, which is what the people wanted. Ukrainism is seen as a vehicle to destroy russkost (Russian identity), so we see it as an anti-nation.
Ukraine itself is composed of at least 7 district areas: Galicia, Sub-Carpathian region, Bukovina, [ex-Crimea], “The” Ukraine East and West banks, and Novorussia, artificially joined for reasons of Communist rule against the will of the people there. Let everyone decide where they want to live!
I spent some time in West Texas during the early 80’s, so I also got a bit of a chuckle out of this comparison (like Jade Helm 15). They are a very independent lot. I was in Midland Texas, which is half way to El Paso, I think from Dallas. I figured the people who originally decided to stay here (it was just a water stop for the trains) were the “too proud quitters”… not tough enough to carry on to El Paso, but too proud to go back. So they are historically a people mentally willing to endure harsh conditions for their self honor.
They will probably disagree; but then again I’m a Yankee (formally a Damn Yankee, but I left, so now just a Yankee).
Banderastan is a state of mind-a psychopathic state of mind. Like ‘America-Love it or Leave It!’, ‘Rule Britannia’, ‘Eretz Yisrael’, ‘Hindutva’ etc.
One can make the case that a Ukrainian nation was being forged, an anti-Russian one for the most part, but still propaganda and schools do the trick. The complication is that the West decided to go radical and bring out the gangs with torches in their marches. So no slow, twenty-year period to wipe out all remaining touches of Russia – instead, a forced pace that is such a threat to parts of the Ukraine and Russia that a strong response was required.
Perhaps the West could have had a Ukraine that was more anti-Russian than Poland before too long. They just couldn’t wait.
English is a difficult language to master.
The author’s use of the word, ‘fake’ rather than ‘incorrect’ would suffice.
“And idea can not be “fake” as long as some people believe in it.”
Idea’s are either of substance or without substance, thus idea’s are about: reality or illusions.
When an ‘idea’ is without substance, we say, that idea is without MERIT, and this keeps the discussion honest.
When something is fake, ‘it’s not real, yet it still has substance. An ‘idea’ that is ‘not real’, does not really exist, it’s a false-God, an illusion, an idol would be a more exacting word for what the author intends by the use of the word, ‘fake’.
So, what’s confusing is watching people financially independent live lives of nonsense.
Fake has to do with distortion. It is a fraud, a deliberate distortion of the truth, a deception. A lie, in short.
Fake has only connection to material world. Fake can be currency, watches, art, university diploma etc. Fake is something what pretend to be original. Ideas can not be fake.
I startef look at using word fake in connection with “Life experience degree” universitie, which authorities consider fake. Fake would if someone home make diploma of Oxford and make looks like original.
anon…about the word ‘fake’ as being the same as ‘incorrect’…this is not a synonym…fake and false are synonyms…similar meaning….
Incorrect’s synonym is ‘wrong’….not fake.
I think Tazhit did the right word there….fake can still be there…its just false.
Fake is something what pretends to be original, conected only to material world. Fake can be currency, art, watches, college diploma. ideas can not be fake. I started thinking about use of word fake in english in connection with “Life experience degree” universities which authorities consider fake. It is not fake at all. Fake would be if someone make home diploma of Oxford, Cambridge etc.
The analogy of Ukraine versus Russia as Texas versus the USA is actually not a good analogy.
Much better would be Ukraine versus Russia as Britain versus the USA, given that Ukraine was the geopolitical core of what is now modern Russia, and modern Ukrainians are essentially the descendants of the founders of pre-Muscovite Kyivan Rus. Ukraine is really the “mother country”
for Russia, much like it is said Britain is the “mother country” for the USA. Without the people of Britain there would be no modern USA as we know it. Without the people of Ukraine there would be no modern Russia as we know it.—THEREFORE, suppose, Britain was right on the border of the USA and at some point the rulers of the USA wanted to simply annex Britain and make it just another state of the American Union, demote London which existed centuries before Washington DC was founded, to a mere state capital, and of course, arguing that the people are really the same, and they both speak the same language [I think there is less difference between American English and British English than between modern Ukrainian and modern Russian], and they all share a very similar culture, etc.—I think there would be “British nationalists” who would object to such a demotion, and there would probably be warfare, and “British separatism”.
Centuries of different historical development have created some very serious compatibility problems between Ukrainians and Russians functioning under the same government, especially since traditionally Ukrainians never had any real power, voice or presence among the ruling circles of Russia but were then and still are now, by some Russians, regarded as essentially inferior, degenerate, country bumpkin types, not that this means Russians and Ukrainians should be waging war!
Another strange theme I find running through many posts here is that Ukraine is an “artificial country” because various components of it were supposedly put together by peaceful administrative transfer instead of one part conquering the other parts militarily.
Thus, very notably with Crimea, it is said
that Crimea “rightfully” belongs to Russia, and it really looks like this is said, because Russia gained Crimea through bloody military conquest from the Ottoman Turkish Empire, whereas Ukraine has no valid claim to Crimea because Khruschchev’s peaceful administrative transfer is simply not as valid as the bygone appropriation by military conquest. Is that really a valid position
to take? That gaining something through warfare and conquest is more valid and better than gaining it through peaceful administrative transfer?—And geographically speaking, it seems
to make more sense to unite Crimea to Ukraine, given the natural land-attachment,—unless of course Ukraine is totally dismembered, and Russia annexes the whole southeastern so-called Novorussian territory.—But do you see what I am driving at? Is gaining land through military conquest more valid than gaining land through peaceful administrative transfer?
That is true, “unless” you remember that all the dynasty and dozens of other lords of power in all Russia came from the areas now in Ukraine in the beginning of Russia.And, “unless” you remember the countless other top officials that ruled all Russia up until the Revolution in 1917 that were born in areas of today’s Ukraine.And, “unless” you remember that more of the USSR leaders were Ukrainians (and ruled the entire Union) than were Russians.So no,its not true that Ukrainians had no influence before in all Russia.They were far more influential than people from any other region of “Russia”.Except maybe Moscow and St Petersburg.But that is always the case in countries.Those in the largest cities always have the most influence.Paris and London dominate in their countries.But that doesn’t mean other parts of their countries have no influence.As for regional stereotypes,that is common in all countries.A fact well proved by the US.The US South is said to be all “Rednecks”,Texas all “Cowboys”,New England,Irish.Chicago and New York,Italian mafia.And California,is all “Hollywood actors” or “Mexican-American drug gangs”.And while some people that fit those stereotype’s do exist in those places,most people there don’t .The same was/is true of Ukraine.But the stereotype of Ukraine today is much worse than being thought of as “country bumpkins”.Its of being all nazi and killers (minus Novorossia).That’s the stereotype you need to worry about being known for today.
Who were these “countless other top officials that ruled all Russia up until the Revolution in 1917 that were born in areas of today’s Ukraine”, and who were those Ukrainians ruling the USSR more so than the Russians? Can you name any names? Can you be more detailed and specific?
Gladly,we can start with Yuri Dolgorukiy Prince from Kiev who led to the founding of Moscow itself.His son Andrey Bogolyubsky a Prince of Vyshhorod near Kiev before becoming Grand Prince of Vladimir-Suzdal (which was the forerunner of today’s “Russia”).The Gagarin,Obolensky,even the Tolstoy family have a Ukrainian origin.We can also add the Princes Golitzin part of whose family were the Korecki of Rivne. The powerful Razumovsky family,related to many of Russia’s elite families.And throughout the period being from Ukraine wasn’t considered any different than being from Rostov or Petersburg.The last days of the Empire the head of the Duma was Mikhail Rodzianko from Dnipropetrovsk.And one of the other leading politicians was even from next door in Bessarabia,Vladimir Purishkevich. Now lets go to the USSR,where out of the 8 political leaders, were Khrushchev (Ukrainian ),Brezhnev (from Ukraine,Dnipropetrovsk),Chernenko (Ukrainian),Gorbachev (half-Ukrainian).And even today the Russian government is stuffed full of people with Ukrainian backgrounds in important positions.
Let’s also not leave out cultural leaders in Russia.Two of the best known and must highly praised of the 19th Century “Russians” were Nikolai Gogol and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky,both from today’s Ukraine.And both would be horrified and disgusted to hear anyone dare to think Ukrainians weren’t Russians.
hahahaha…amazing Uncle Bob 1…by the way, what’s the 1 for ?
Haha,I used to be “Uncle Bob”.But then someone “stole” my name one day and posted as Uncle Bob. So I decided to add the “1” to show we were different people.I haven’t seen any other posts using my name since then.
Then the key issue is whether these individuals of Ukrainian origin contributed anything positive
to the interests of the Ukrainian people, did they serve to enhance the stature and respect of the
Ukrainian language, Ukrainian culture, as art, music, architecture, etc. Did they enhance the well-being and prosperity of the Ukrainian people. Did they acknowledge being
Ukrainian and were proud to be Ukrainian and contribute to higher esteem for Ukrainians and things Ukrainian among the Russians at large. Did they speak Ukrainian as well as Russian and were not ashamed of their second language,—as for instance, today, the Russian defense minister Shoigu, I understand, is not ashamed of being of Tuvan heritage and freely speaks Mongolian and Tuvan in addition to Russian, and so he is not an adversary against his own people but no doubt serves to enhance the prestige of Tuvans among the Russians at large. Under such circumstances his being of Tuvan heritage has meaning and makes a difference.
Here is the problem with your argument.Ukrainians are Russians that speak a regional dialect of the same language (West Russian instead of East Russian).So for them, “Did they enhance the well-being and prosperity of the Ukrainian people. Did they acknowledge being
Ukrainian and were proud to be Ukrainian and contribute to higher esteem for Ukrainians and things Ukrainian among the Russians at large”.You might ask did George Bush enhance the well being of Texas? Or does a Bavarian politician enhance Bavaria instead of the whole country? Do German politicians from Low German speaking areas of Germany do those things in Germany? As long as you continue to think that Ukrainians aren’t Russians (against all historical research) you won’t understand the falseness of the Bandera ideology.Ukraine is a separate “country” from Russia today.Just as Austria is a separate “country” from Germany.But Austrians are ethnic Germans,just as Ukrainians are ethnic Russians.But in one case your question can be answered how you would like. Khrushchev in 1954 illegally ceded Crimea to Ukraine.Stripping it from the Russian SSF,against the wishes of most Crimeans.A mistake that is now corrected.But at least you can be happy that he was one Ukrainian in charge of the whole country that did try to “enhance Ukraine”.
Concerning Crimea,—If you just look at geography, it makes total geographic sense for Crimea to be a part of Ukraine because Crimea is attached to the Ukrainian landmass, not to the landmass
of modern Russia. Also, right from the start, I remember evidence that the famous “join Russia” referendum was boycotted by a large number of people in Crimea, so the much vaunted 90+% vote in favor of Russian annexation was likely 90+% of only 50% of the total vote-eligible population.
And when the dust settles, if genuine peace comes between Russia and Ukraine, then Crimea probably should be demilitarized, made into a resort, the old naval base into a museum, Ukrainians and Russians given equal unrestricted access, and Russia can build an ultramodern state of the art naval base on the eastern Black Sea coast, maybe around Sochi? I bet for what they spent on building the site of the Olympic games they could have build a whole naval base, maybe even two naval bases, all state of the art modern.
As far as the question whether Ukrainians are ethnically different from Russians, I think the main
difference has been on a more practical level, which political system is preferred. Ukrainians experienced a significantly unique history involving a period of enserfment under Roman Catholic Poland, and the constant battles [every year at least one major battle] with encroaching Muslim
Turks and Tatars, the struggles over the slave trade, that Ukrainians had to organize themselves
into the Cossack regiments, train themselves in the military arts, and go smash up the slave trade
centers like Kaffa and liberate themselves from slavery, and then fight against assorted self-holding aristocrats, etc. Because of this, most Ukrainians abhorred slavery, serfdom, and the notion of some tyrant “god king” ruling over them like over mere chattels. By contrast, the people of the original Vladimir-Suzdal area, later the kingdom of Muscovy around Moscow, they had to endure the depradations, the butchery and the terror of the oprychchyna system of criminal
“tsar” Ivan IV the Terrible, who set his country back centuries and murdered or chased away most of the talented and capable people in his realm [who might in any way rival him] and in the end murdered his [equally criminal psychopathic but capable son] and brought the Rurikide dynasty
to an ignoble end. Many monarchs were struggling with powerful nobles or boyars, in Europe, or elsewhere, but no one went to such extremes. I suspect this was because Ivan IV being himself educated had access to the works of Herodotus, and he chose the model of the ancient Persian slave empire as the one to impose and thus secure the best power for himself. In Herodotus there is an interesting passage, a conversation ascribed between Great King Xerxes and his ally Queen Artemisia: [per Wikipedia entry under “Artemisia”] According to Herodotus she replied:
“I think that you should retire and leave Mardonius behind with those whom he desires to have. If he succeeds, the honour will be yours because your slaves performed it. If on the other hand, he fails, it would be no great matter as you would be safe and no danger threatens anything that concerns your house. And while you will be safe the Greeks will have to pass through many difficulties for their own existence. In addition, if Mardonius were to suffer a disaster who would care? He is just your slave and the Greeks will have but a poor triumph. As for yourself, you will be going home with the object for your campaign accomplished, for you have burnt Athens”.[39]
—Thus, under this system, even the highest ranking general like Mardonius was literally no more than chattel property slave of the king. The king was the only person in the empire who was a free person. Literally all others under him were his property-slaves. It was a radical system, since even in the Ottoman Empire where slavery existed, or in most other realms and empires, the state was governed by the king and an elite group of free men. But from the theory of “god king” the only one free person in the realm, everyone else his property-slaves, there came the term
“kholop tsarskiy” in post-Ivan-Terrible Muscovy, which I understand meant “slave/chattel of the tsar”. That enormous difference in political structure brought out the first rumblings of trouble ahead when in around 1654 the sovereign Cossack Army of Ukraine negotiated a protectorate status with Tsar Alexei, the Great King of Muscovy, and under the Muscovite system the tsar defied the desires of the Ukrainians and refused to swear an oath to uphold the treaty, because this was simply not customary, and indeed, given that the tsar’s subjects were legally his property and slaves, even the highest boyars, princes and generals, it made no more sense for the tsar
to swear an oath to anyone supposedly coming under him than to swear an oath to his kitchen utensils.—The rest became basically the grinding effort, slowly progressing, of the imperial court of Moscow to impose its more or less “slave empire” regimen over the Ukrainians who abhorred this. So most of the incompatibility or difference between modern Ukrainians and modern Russians stems from this unfortunate heritage, and it is really much like North Korea versus South Korea.
The problem is not the quibbling over some abstract “ethnicity” but rather the clash of essentially
incompatible political-social systems. Can the two Koreas and their people be united? Not unless the one or the other system is obliterated. Both the Russian side and the Ukrainian side tend to choose the worst “national heroes” and examples,—Ivan the Terrible and his modern pupil Stalin
on the Russian side, and assorted right-wing extremists on the Ukrainian side.
Some other comments:—My understanding is that the original name “Rus” is actually a Finnish name, and not Slavonic. The name Moscow is a Finnish name, not Slavonic. Now I personally do not subscribe to some bizarre views of some Ukrainian nationalists that if the original indigenous population of the Vladimir-Suzdal area was Finnish-speaking then this is something wrong or negative. So what? According to another WIkipedia source, genetic testing of the remaining descendants of the Rurik family shows Slavonic markers and also Finnish markers, but notably,
no Scandinavian markers [another nail in coffin of the debunkable theory that the founders of the Kyivan Rus realm were “vikings”]. Being Slavic means having a Slavic language and Slavic culture as well as the certain Slavonic spirituality as part of that culture,—not depending on genetics,—any more than being “Hispanic” or Spanish-speaking is based on any given genetic
or racial lineage.
As far as language is concerned, if you want to say that there is only one Russian language, but it has three major variants, being Ukrainian, Muscovite and Belarussian, I guess, fine. That is like in China, all the Chinese insist that there is only one Chinese language, but it is actually a family of variants ranging from Mandarin, Taiwanese, Cantonese, Szechuanese, etc. As far as I know,
most Chinese are actually bilingual, at least. They do not fight over these language variants.
Mandarin is the universally accepted variant because that is the variant spoken around Beijing.
The genius of Chinese writing is that it expresses meanings which are pronounced according to the given variants but are universally understood, like the symbols for 1,2,3 etc.
Probably the best solution would be to recognize Ukrainian, Muscovite and Belarussian as equal official languages throughout the reaches of the Russian Federation, and that the entire Russian population should become more or less multilingual as to these Eastern Slavonic languages.
The population of Ukraine and Belarus already all speak Russian as a second language.
Expert linguists have established that modern Russian, modern Ukrainian and modern Belarussian are sufficiently distinct to be classified as distinct though related languages.
Modern Russian, as I have read, is essentially the language constructed per efforts of A. Pushkin.
Modern Ukrainian has been preserved best in western Ukraine and at one time was spoken by
the rural population in much of eastern Ukraine [the population which perished in the great famines and in the war brought down by the regime of Stalin, the criminal pupil of Ivan the Terrible in methods of governing and another of those “bright lights” of the human species].
What I actually find is that while Ukrainians and Russians are stupidly fighting over the existence
of Ukrainian as a valid language, both languages seem to be getting overwhelmed by English
so that now you really have “Ukrenglish” and “Russenglish” being spoken. No serious literature or scientific writings or other serious writings can be done using “Russenglish” or “Ukrenglish”,—no more than serious writings can be done using “Spanglish”.
Thus, both the Russian and the Ukrainian languages are getting overwhelmed by the one ultimate “artificial language” on the planet, which is the modern English language, that has lost almost all complexities of grammar but tends to soak up all sort of words and terms from all over the planet, then mangles them in pronunciation, and simply generates an endless stream of linguistic inventions.—Not that I have anything against the English language, and frankly I use it and like it, but do not favor its everwhelming influence creating mere “Ukrenglish” or “Russenglish” out there.
I would prefer Slavicizing the Slavonic languages as far as possible. So I prefer using “pechataty” meaning “to print” even if from the Russian, rather than “drukuvaty” which is apparently from German. I would prefer using “richpospolyta” as the Slavonic translation of the original Latin “res publica” even though that is from the Polish, that the Poles did translate the Latin into their Slavonic Polish language. What is really wrong with Polish anyway? As long as the language is Slavic, it is fine. But when I see usage of “mer” instead of “posadnyk” for a city “mayor”, or usage of “lider” instead of “nachalnyk, nastavnyk, providnyk, provodytel, vozhd” all these Slavonic choices, I cringe, and when the Russian language uses mangled so-called Latin names for calendar months instead of the Slavonic names as used by Ukrainians or another Slavonic set used by the Belarussians, again, I sort of wince. Appropriation of foreign words and abandonment of indigenous words is probably caused by a combination of feeling fundamentally inferior culturally and linguistically to the given foreign language, and/or regarding the usage of the foreign terms as evidence of one’s “better education” or “elite exclusivity” and alignment with the language and culture considered to be superior and/or dominant.—That is not really good or justifiable. It is perfectly fine for the Ukrainian language to adopt words and terms from other Slavonic languages. In Ukrainian one can say “robota” or “pratsia” sort of like in English one can say “work” or “labor”, and the language is only richer on account of it. There is actually difficulty determining which word comes from where, since just because words are “similar to” this is not the same as “derived from”. For instance, the polite title “mister” or “sir” in Russian is rendered “gaspadin”, while in Ukrainian and in Polish it is “pan”, but research shows that “pan” is actually neither Ukrainian nor Polish but comes from the term “zupan” which some scholars [per Wikipedia sources] trace back to the 500’s-600’s AD. The Czech language also uses “pan” as the polite title, as I understand. In Ukrainian one can say “thank you” in two ways. One is “spasybih” which is like in Russian, derived from “God save you”. The other is “diakuyu” which is like German “danke” or English “thanks” or Polish “dzienkuie”. Similar, but not identical, and not confined to merely Slavic languages. So why the commotion? And is it really that hard for Russian-speakers to learn Ukrainian, or Belarussian?
It would be significant cultural loss and impoverishment for the Eastern Slavs if the Ukrainian language and the Belarussian language were to be pressured into extinction by the Russian language. When a language becomes extinct, this is much like an animal or plant species going extinct,—it is nothing good.
Your point about the legitimacy of conquest versus peaceful administrative transfer is very sound but at this point moot. I would have to argue that active choice by the citizenry is far more legitimate than either of those other methods, and the people of Crimea overwhelmingly chose to join Russia. Ergo, whatever the validity of past claims to the region, it legitimately belongs to Russia now even if it never did before.
Crimea belongs to Russia because the Crimean people want it that way, so it was peacefully liberated, along true ‘Responsibility to Protect’ principles, to protect its people from the likes of the Azov Battalion and the fascist butchers responsible for the Odessa Massacre.
You are making common mistake in placing origin and real center of power of Kievan Rus in… Kiev. Actually place there Russian statehood began was Novgorod and for century in all civil wars over succession victory belonged to princes supported by Novgorod because this city and surrounding region were power by itself while all the power of Kiev was coming only from being a residence of rulers.
Novgorod is part of modern Russia.
So no. Any analogy with Britain is false. At best u can speak of Australia and USA and it’s still very deceptive.
Turkey and Russia gas deal:
Turkey is emulating Ukraine in its stubborn insistence on a discounted gas price.
A gas pipeline from Iran just had an explosion. Turkey relies on Russian gas for a future. It’s Iranian supply is subject to explosions from numerous enemies. (Imagine Syrian expertise with bombs as payback for Turkey launching air strikes).
Turkey has been offered by Russia to be the kingpin of gas resupply to the Mediterranean-European markets. It will make a fortune doing nothing but turning on valves to various other countries as gas flows from Russia through the nexus in Turkey.
Yet, Erdogan wants a discount.
Very Ukie-like in its behavior and POV. And very vassal-like.
Zerohedge has an article.
Here’s a summation:
In the final analysis, Turkey wants Assad out of Syria and that means backing anyone and everyone who is willing to help make that happen (including ISIS) with the exception of the PKK, who Ankara is keen on crushing especially after June’s election results. So now, Turkey will use ISIS as an excuse to procure NATO support for a politically motivated rout of Kurdish “terrorists”. The West will hope that ISIS will suffer more damage than YPG, Turkey will hope that PKK and, by extension, YPG will suffer more damage than ISIS, and everyone – Ankara, Washington, ISIS, and PKK – will hope the when the dust (and blood) finally settles, Bashar al-Assad will have met a Gaddafi-esque end.
And all for what, you ask? All for this:
“In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-30/real-story-behind-turkeys-us-backed-war-terror
Mats, Syria is being destroyed for Israel and the ‘Zionist Plan for the Middle East’. Israel needs to destroy all its neighbours in order to seize more land for Eretz Yisrael, its God-ordained lebensraum, ‘from the Nile to the Euphrates’, which will be populated with orthodox and ultra-orthodox charmers like the knife-wielder at the Gay Parade, who breed like rabbits.
For those who are interested in knowing the origins of the NED, and harbors any delusion that it is truly a simple NGO, check this out:
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/putin-is-right-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-is-the-cias-trojan-horse/
some snippets:
The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured. But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.
This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill. The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented, not fully recognizing the significance of the demand.
…
A third point that the Post ignored is that the Russian law requiring outside-funded political organizations to register as “foreign agents” was modeled on a U.S. law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. In other words, the U.S. government also requires individuals and entities working for foreign interests and seeking to influence U.S. policies to disclose those relationships with the U.S. Justice Department or face prison.
Maybe the Duma will start a new organization to send to the US: Russian Endowment for Democracy. That would frighten the US — it would be another R.E.D. scare: the REDs are invading and hiding under your bed.
But Russia’s list is real, unlike McCarthy’s.
The cruel days of old?
More people have been murdered this century than ever.
The proportion of civilians killed in wars is far higher than ever.
The number of peoples/cultures that have survived centuries or even millenia of wars and empires but have succumbed this century is phenomenal.
The number of human cultures and languages and ethnic groups that are (going) extinct has exploded, and the same goes for non-human species.
Methinks we judge the past rather too hypocritically.
@ Webe,
Q; Methinks we judge the past rather too hypocritically.
R; We shouldn’t be judging anything at all. ‘We’ should learn and act accordingly. The past was yesterday and is unchangeable [unless you want to revise it], the future is the next hour and out of my grasp, so, I’m sitting here right now, unwillingly busy to create tomorrow’s history.
What will it be, what will it look like?
And for those who still holds on to the delusion that there is free speech in the West, take a look at this:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/07/police-state-ministry-of-truth-hits.html
I know, it’s only in Spain, but just wait for the other western monkey see monkey do countries catch on!
The Spanish regime is directly descended from Francoist fascist forces, so this measure is only to be expected. Moreover, nakedly neo-fascist elements control the Spanish ‘private security’ industry.
First, you’ll need a flag, then copy that item many times over, so people have something to
trollrally behind.Next, ‘we’ create a ‘New Pearl Harbor’ and have the
GoyGentilesReal American Patriots [TM – C] do the fighting for us.Today, we’re all Jonathan Pollard…
One need only look Northeast to the Baltic Sates, then Westward to the Balkans to see Ukraine as an anomaly. Its centrifugal forces will eventually facture it completely thanks to the Outlaw Empire’s vicious shove. During the early 1990s, I read Hrushevsky’s translated works and didn’t think Ukraine would continue even this long as a unitary state. I understand why Russia would prefer Ukraine to remain whole but think that wish impossible in the longrun. Regardless, Ukraine will remain a basket case for decades and detrimental to its ordinary people.
Can you please explain the Baltic States thing – do you think that Baltics should be one country?
No, esten, I’m using the Baltic States as an example of how the various ethnolinguistic groups have constructed their own individual states instead of one grand unitary structure, just as in the Balkans.
Minnesotans are clearly a different ethnic stock to Floridians.
How many Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Hispanics are there in Minnesota? Not a great deal I’d suggest.
How many Scandinavians and Germanic peoples are there in Miami? Also not a great deal I’d suggest.
Clear ethnic differences between these areas, they aren’t imaginary.
The Hispanic population there is large.But not overwhelming anywhere except South Florida.Northern and Central Florida is different.Also if numbers are counted there are large numbers of Northern US people (including from Minnesota) that have moved to Florida over a couple of generations (snowbirds).So in states like Texas,Arizona,Nevada,Florida,California,they are a cross-section of the US population.With vast numbers of people born in other states that have moved there.There are some states in each region of the US not affected by those movements (much).But all the faster growing states are heavy with outsiders.
Jews following the Banderite brand of Ukrainian nationalism – which is weird, because original, WWII Banderites considered Jews their enemies and helped Nazis exterminate them.
Not so unusual considering the “Stern gang” and the backdoor support the nazis got from Jewish “big money” on the sly. Not to mention the Jewish mafia organised crime support.
A Russian/Ukrainian friend posted this on FB.I think it says something along the lines of this article:
“With regard to the fact that Ukraine – this is the Kievan Rus and Katsap – it ugrofiny some newcomers.
At first. “Kievan Rus’ did not exist. There was a “Rus”. And the capital of the state, “Russia” at different times were different cities. First Capital – Ladoga. It came to Ladoga Vikings led by Rurik in 862, it was then that Russia was founded. The second capital – Novgorod. It was only in 882 (20 years) Prince Oleg (guardian son of Rurik – Igor) campaign went from Novgorod to Kiev, and took it. Then he moved to the residence (just like Peter in the future will transfer his residence from Moscow to the young St. Petersburg).
That is, if someone does not understand, Kiev Rus was captured by military means, and is included in its composition (annexed).
So that Ukrainians have to decide who they are descendants of those people … who lived in Kyiv until its capture by Prince Oleg (and then Russian invaders enslaved proud Ukrainians already in 882), and they are descendants of Russian Novgorod, captured the city.
If they are the descendants of the people of Kiev, who lived on this land before the coming of Russian, while in Russia they have no relationship, and the descendants of Russia can not be, they can not be descendants of natives of Spain in some of Peru.
If they are the descendants of those very Novgorod Russian annexed by Kiev – then what kind of Ukraine do you mean? Then they are Russians with modern one people.
Russia was one. Capitals were many. Novgorod Rus, Kievan Rus, Moscow Russia, St. Petersburg Russia – it’s all one country. And it is called now – Russia.”
I think the idea of united ideology comes from Constantine, who set christianity as only religion in empire and immediately forbids all others. This act then waves thru history. Nice book: The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics.
Christianity the brought 2 important things for humanity: 1, genocide ( Cathars etc, Crusades, Jan Hus ) on own population to press uunited ideology 2, police state- inquisition.
France is, beside Texas, example. They hunted gnostics as Templars and Cathars. France set 1 language as oficial and supress all others like Occitan. Same was done in Spain after reconquista except few places- Basque and Catalonia ( where actualy speek occitan language). Then French revolution ( it was organized from outside with local colaborators like markiz La Fayette). And then we have Setif and Guelma massacre of 8. May 1945. Short about this massacre. France need soldiers so they recruited them from colonies, including Algeria, promising Algeria that after war will be indenpendent. At the end of war France was not willing to keep promises but now there was regular well trained military force of Algerians returning home= no good. De Gaulle put ’em on ships, transported to Algeria and let ’em march home. When they get to planned trap Frenchmen blocked mountain passes and France bomb them.
I see similarities with Ukraine. Violence is one of western civilization value.
It has all something to do with the fact that the Slavs are in general a bunch of idiots.
They lost over 30 million people in WW2 (Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Serbs). They were specifically targeted for extermination because they were Slavic. And yet, in spite of that, they are totally unable to withhold their unity, they are today even unaware of the genocide that happened over them and the world generally does not know about it. I am not saying that we should be like Jews and brainwash the world to death with “our Holocaust story”, but we are at the opposite extreme.
Btw, this is a resigned Slav speaking.
The Ukrainian war is the last nail in the coffin of pan-Slavism.
But some hope of ressurection still exist. Russia vetoed anti-Serbian resolution in the SC of the UN recently – i believe partly to show to the rest of the Slavs (mainly Poles) that they should reconsider pan-Slavism altogether.
It is really shame there is very little unity between Slavs ppl not only on govermentals level but generally speaking… only exception maybe Czechs and Slovaks….
It is a a sad but true fact that for whatever reason there has always been a lack of unity in the Slavic World.Its been manifested throughout history.That has been the main cause of their defeats of the past.Their few times of unity show victories.But not only the Slavs,its true of the Arabs,Latin America,Latin Europe,the Iranian and Indian Worlds as well.For whatever ,as I said reasons,those great societies have always back-stabbed among themselves.And never been able to keep unity among themselves for long.The Germanic states,and the Chinese World have been much better at that.I suspect it has a cultural basis.That in the Germanic States there is a culture of obedience to power ingrained in.That you don’t see in the Slavic,Latin,Arabic cultures,that are more attuned to personal rights.While the Chinese,being the oldest real civilization in the World learned many centuries ago that to survive as a united state co-operation and obedience were a must.
Yes, comparison with Arabs is absolutely correct. With that difference that Arabs don’t have a country like Russia around which they can unite. So there is even less excuse for Slavs.
The first time Slavs appeared in history, they were united in so called “Samo’s tribal federation”, from 624. to around 660. It included Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenians and northern Serbs (Wends, Serbs from today’s eastern and northern Germany). And they were unbeatable even then! They crushed the Franks and the Avars. As soon as Samo died and federation disintegrated, they became an easy pray for their enemies. And we had to wait some 1400 years to see finaly all the Slavs united. 1400 years! The only period in world history when virtually all Slavs were united was the period between 1945.-1948. Three years. Then my country, Yugoslavia, betrayed this grandiose unity, when that moron Tito break up with Stalin. It effected the rest of the Slavic world, and some 40 years later it all fell appart. Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia disintegrated between 1991. and 1993.It has to be said that it was most unfortunate that Slavic unity happened under the ideology of Marxism, because the creators of the ideology, Marx and Engels, deeply despised the Slavs. It is really a tragedy.
Anyway, Uncle Bob, you are quite right to mention the Chinese in this context. I strongly believe that the Slavs (if they think to survive) have to follow the Chinese model. Unification or dissaperance from the face of the Earth. Just like the ruler who unified China – Qin Shi Huang,, was doing. The tribes who resisted unification were annihilated. We should follow this example, I am convinced.
Still pretty shaky, but the possibilities seem worth noting as explanation for historical and ethnic factors in how things may turn out.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes
Home
»
May
»
Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes
FROM THE MAY 2013 ISSUE
Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes
Your ancestors’ lousy childhoods or excellent adventures might change your personality, bequeathing anxiety or resilience by altering the epigenetic expressions of genes in the brain.
By Dan Hurley|Thursday, June 25, 2015